Rabid Intellectualism and Sarah Palin

CT

In a scathing review of Sarah Palin and elitism,presented in his piece When Atheists Attack, Sam Harris has exemplified all of the flaws of the intellectual movement from contradictions, short sightedness, to a platitudinal attitude towards most “ordinary” people.

Starting his diatribe off, Harris says, “The point is that she (Palin) comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her.” What are the exact intellectual requirements for the job of Vice President, or for that matter, President? I would like the criteria. Realistically, there is no amount of education, training, or experience that can get you ready for the enormity of these jobs. What you can judge is the experience of the life that person has had and what potential do they bring to the table.

Interestingly enough, by his argument, Harris automatically disqualified Obama from seeking the Presidency. Obama is a lawyer, by trade, a legislator; he does not fit the intellectual mold for being President. He does, however, fit the intellectual requirement for a Senator. Palin, on the other hand, is an executive officer by trade, a decision maker. The only difference between the two is that Obama is running for the office that requires the greatest need for experience as a decision maker, experience he does not have, and Palin is running for 2nd in command.

Another point that is quizzical is Harris’s angst, in existentialist terms, towards the electorates’ support of Palin. Harris states, “The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country.” As noted above, if Palin is an exercise in mediocrity I would not even venture to think what the Obama candidacy is.

Ironically, while trying to make a point about Palin’s supposed dogmatic beliefs, Harris contradicts himself on his accusation of her mediocrity and half of America’s love affair with it. “It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska.” So, on one hand, it is wrong to admire and support her but, on the other, you can see why people admire and support, her. Which is it? The other point of contention is that this is a direct contributor to her intellectual capacity to govern, she is a multi-tasker and generalist, able to shift gears at a moments notice. As, Vice President, or maybe even President one day, she will be required to take on different responsibilities at the drop of a hat, she has already proven her capacity to do this successfully.

Harris also seems obsessed with presenting evidence that paints Palin as some sort of religious zealot and nut, teetering on the brink of insanity. Harris states, “I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events.” He draws this ridiculous conclusion based on this particular statement, “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan.” One of the greatest men in US history made a similar quote as Sarah Palin, “.Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.” That man was George Washington.

Closing out Harris asks this very poignant question, “Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence.”

Every example that Harris has made is one which requires a specific area of talent or study. The office of POTUS deals with a myriad of issues ranging from economics, national security, infrastructure, cultural issues, science, technology, and everything in between. I do not want an intelligent specific elitist running this country, I want a pragmatic generalist, which Palin actually might be. I want someone who is familiar with all the issues but has enough common sense to know when they might need the opinion of a particular expert in that field. In other words, I want a leader.

CT

[1] When Atheists Attack

Continue reading ...

Global Warming, More Gore-Bull or Actual Fact?

C.T.

While catching up on my back log of news junkyism, I came across an article posted on PoliPundit from Daily Tech. Basically, it talked about the American Physical Society, a group that represents about 50 thousand physicists and how they have reversed their stance on climate change. The article is titled," Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate."

Across the scientific communities there seems to be disagreement about the causes of climate change.

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." [1]

Also, there is the question about the validity of the methods used by the IPCC and its 2007 climate report.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors" [1]

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe there is something amiss with the environment. There is to much evidence to convince me otherwise. But, does this mean that all the "apoco-literature" about the end of civilization as we know it and it being mankind's fault is true? A resounding, "HELL NO!"

Mankind contributes about 5% of the CO2 emissions that are presently at work. If we are in the "end times" we have no control. Even if we staved off and cut our percentage of CO2 emissions down to nil, what would it buy us? Maybe a few years of the world we once knew? That is like going through chemo-therapy to extend your life another 3 months, it just doesn't make any sense.

Here is the rub about global warming and the Armageddon scenarios, fear sells. Remember the Y2K bug? How many companies profited from fear mongering there. In another article from Daily Tech, titled IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming ,the IAE is calling for a $45 trillion dollar plan to halve carbon emissions.

On Friday, the Paris-based IEA released its formal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The cost? A mere 45 trillion dollars -- an amount some three times larger than the entire U.S. economy. [2]

There are a few problems though.

And because the plan grabs all the "low hanging fruit" in carbon reductions, the amount needed to complete the job wouldn't just be double that $45 trillion, but far higher. [2]

and

Worse still, the report only covers emissions from energy production -- the much larger amount arising from agriculture, transportation, land-use changes, and other factors weren't included. [2]

As I have stated in the past, alternative energy sources, conservation, cleaning up existing environmental problems, and using technology to better our environment are all worthwhile and sensible. But these tactics being used by the far left eco-terrorists amount to nothing more than the same tactics they accuse the present administration of for getting us involved in Iraq. They are hypocritical despotic megalomaniacs who are driven by a need to find any reason to increase government control over the masses. They are taking something worthwhile that needs our attention and turning it into something that will inevitably backfire on them. People will be so sick and tired of the "clean up the environment" movement, nothing will ever get done.

C.T.

[1] Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
[2] IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming

Continue reading ...

The Mid-East and the U.S., I-gnorance E-xplored D-eeply

C.T.

I am tired of the incisive whining about how America needs to understand the plight of these poor terrorists. How many times does it need to be explained. Terrorism in the Middle East is not some new phenom. Gasp!!! You mean it wasn't created by the imperialistic ways of the United States oppressing a down-trodden people and being Pro-Israeli? Why no, it was not.

Rami G. Khouri, a staff writer for the Daily Star, wrote an Op-ed titled, "The US in the Mideast: ignorance abroad." A stunning display of excuses, ignorance and blame as to why the poor oppressed "freedom fighters," better known as terrorists, are all our fault.

I have argued for years now that a new spirit of populist defiance, resistance and self-assertion is the single most important strategic development in the Middle East. Large numbers of Arabs, Iranians and Turks - hundreds of millions of people - have shed their legacy of passive acquiescence in their own suffering, weakness, marginalization and victimization. Instead, they are determined to take their fate into their own hands, and to challenge and checkmate those who would keep them in their previous vulnerable, dehumanized state. [1]

Interesting, we have kept them in a "dehumanized state" and they have shed their passive acquiescence. How poetic. You know history has a way of clarifying ignorance, so let's get some fired up.

Terrorism is nothing new to the Middle East, in fact it has its roots as far back as the 8th Century with an esoteric group known as the Hashshashin. Or as we know the etymology today, assassin. This secret group of "Holy Killers," and I use the term very loosely, had it starts in Persia, or modern day Iran, ironically. They were created because of Sunni oppression of their particular Shia Muslim sect. Now if this sounds like it is straight out of the Illuminati files, sorry to disappoint, this is real pure history at its best.

They were extremely deadly killers even rumored to entered into Saladin's tent in the heart of his camp, and leaving a poisoned cake and a note saying "You are in our power" on Saladin's chest as he slept. They got results through cultivating a reputation of fear and terror. This was one of their hallmarks and what is made them legendary in certain circles. All of their killings were in a public place, usually a Mosque, and highly visible. Now, unlike their modern day contemporaries, they only killed their target, collateral damage was unacceptable.

What does this have to do with Mr. Khouri's article? Just showing him and the blame crew, terror in the Mid-East is nothing new. The art has been perfected to a razor's edge for almost 1200 years. By my math, that was almost 1,000 years, give or take, before the existence of the United States or Israel.

I loved this one so much it damn near made me fall out of my chair laughing.

Most of the Arab public believes that the US attacked Iraq in order to help strengthen Israel, and Arabs see Israel and the US as the two main threats to them. Israel and the US are connected in the minds of most Arabs "in a way which makes anger with one hard to separate from the other." [1]

How's about the oppressive regimes they live under are their greatest threats. Let's look at Saudi Arabia, a fine example. There GDP sits at about $564 billion (2007 est.), oil making up about 45% of this. Yet their official unemployment rate sits at about 13%, while some estimates have it as high as 25%. Nearly 40% of their population is youth under the age of 15 and they are highly uneducated and lack technical skills. Yet this is somehow the U.S. and Israel's fault. We keep them down by buying their oil.

Now let's explore Iran; GDP sits at $753 billion, oil making up 80% of their government revenue. GDP per capita is only $10,600 and unemployment sits at about 12%. Also, about 18% of the population sits below the poverty line. Since Iran's economy is state controlled and their is little to no private sector, most of their educated and skilled members look for employment over seas. Again, it is our fault.

Most tyrannical and despotic governments look for a scape goat to blame their problems on. In this case, the West and Israel are the perfect targets. The hatred they have inspired against us only serves to hide their ineptitude and failures. This is not to say that America and Israel have not made some grave policy mistakes when it comes to the Middle East, but, we are hardly the root of their suffering. Until these populations wake up and see that their own governments have failed them, their only contribution to civilization will be martyrdom, I.E.D.'s, and death. A sad epitaph considering this is the same society which gave us algebra and made significant strides in astronomy, art, technology, and philosophy.

[1] The US in the Mideast: ignorance abroad

Continue reading ...

Euro Conservatives and U.S. Conservatives; Do We Have Common Ground?

C.T.


After a brief sabbatical, provided to me by the United States government, I can continue to feed the beast. I have been "jonesing" to write about all of the hoopla with the election but have not had the time or the tools to do so. With that in mind, I will pick up where I left off. This was a post about a good article I came across back in early May. Bruce Walker, a writer for The American Thinker, wrote a very good article titled, "The Decline of Leftism in Europe." Mr. Walker brings to light the rise of conservatism in Europe with the elections of Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany, the election of Boris Johnson as mayor of London, Berlusconi in Italy, who is expected to be appointed Prime Minister. This is pretty much the A-list of countries in Western Europe and all are going center right, at the least. This is a fantastic move for Europe and it just may be the thing the EU needs to stop this insane spiral it is presently in. For the United States, this also seems to be a great victory, maybe. First, we are not in November; secondly, Europe's conservatives are a little different from ours.

Looking at our cousins across the pond you find something you would recognize as a Conservative, but there are some fairly distinctive differences. After World War II, British Conservatives started moving towards central planning, or a state managed economy, and state ownership. Whereas in the United States you have a liberal free market attitude amongst Conservatives. Another notable difference is the idea of smaller government and individual freedoms, which Americans, for the most part, are partial to. Conservatives in Britain and Europe tend to support the concept of a strong welfare state, with dependence on the government rather than the individual or free market.

These differences will not tear us apart, nor eliminate our common ground with European Conservatives. Our concepts of the world and how to deal with its problems tend to be more aggressive than our European counterparts. Think about the major opposition the United States has received in Britain. It has mainly come from the British Conservatives. It is not that they did not support military action; their view was that we were moving to hastily and showed no prudence. Again, we have much common ground with them, but we must keep in mind we do have differences.

C.T.

[1] The Decline of Leftism in Europe

Continue reading ...

Burke, the Hope for the American Way of Life

C.T.

Sir Edmund Burke, what does this name mean to most Americans? Not much. Sir Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish orator, philosopher, and writer. He was born in Dublin, Ireland on Jan. 12th, 1729, to a Protestant father and Roman Catholic mother. Burke's father was a fairly prosperous attorney in Dublin and the two shared a very distant and cold relationship. His family life, growing up, could be described as very unhappy and controlled by his authoritarian father.Burke was educated in Trinity College and graduated in 1750. He then traveled to England to study law at Middle Temple. He did this on the wishes of his father, but gave up his legal studies in favor of a writing career and essayist. Burke later served in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig Party.

How does this somewhat obscure person have anything to do with the American way of life or its preservence? Edmund Burke is considered, by most, the "Father of Modern Day Anglo-American Conservatism." From his thoughts on the French and American Revolutions, to his crusades against the East India Company, to the plights of Irish Catholics, Burke forged a reputation as a traditionalist, while fighting for the rights of those who he viewed as incapable of defending themselves against tyranny. He was a dichotomy of philosophies and often times he appears to be contradicting himself. This is not the case at all, Burke may have come to different conclusions about seemingly similar situations, but his core philosophies never changed, nor did his application.

To understand Burke and how his ideas can help present day America, you would have to look at his opinions on the French Revolution and his indictments of those who inspired it, the "philosophers." Burke took on the task of defending the pragmatic and traditional order against what was viewed as a noble, progressive revolution which was wholly moral. One might ask, "Why defend the French monarchy, which was so oblivious to the needs of the population and simply abused their positions for their own gains?" It was not the monarchy he was defending; it was the lack of thought put into the French Revolution and the way it was carried out. He was also very concerned with the way it would affect the order of the British Crown and Church.

Burke considered the situation in France to be childish and wrought with emotion, while the revolution in England mature and patient. He observed that the movement of liberty in England was allowed to develop over time and it was not forced upon the government or the people over night. Its natural progression was cultivated and cared for, therefore eliminating much unnecessary bloodshed and chaos. This is not to say that the English had the perfect formula, or that they learned from their own past, especially, when it came to Ireland, Scotland, or even the United States. But, in their own personal history there was a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the governing authority.

Sound familiar? The United States was developing along the lines that the Constitution laid out for us. At times there have been reasons to fight, march, and protest. One is the Civil Rights Movement, done peacefully for the most part, carried out with Christian principles, and delivered with great wisdom. It opened the door for great cultural change. It did more for the rights of Blacks than ten civil wars could have accomplished. Why? Because it was based on strict adherence to peaceful Christian principles and time honored traditions of liberty and freedom for all. Also, and more importantly to Burke, the government had broken its contract with the Black community. Not much of what was promised in the Constitution was being given to them. There was no liberty and justice for "ALL." There was nothing delivered but oppression and violence. Therefore, they had a right and an obligation to seek out those promises. Burke would have applauded this situation, not only for the way it was carried out, but for being a conserving movement which upheld the traditions of the United States, not changed them.

Today, we are trying to force too much change and "progression" to quickly. Most individuals and groups complain and whine about how they are oppressed and disenfranchised by the powers that be. Rather than taking a mature look at history and see how organic our country truly is, we will gladly cut off our arm just to make our foot happy. Burke, himself, was a practical thinker when it came to the individual rights of mankind, but tempered it with wisdom from the past. He wrote, "By having the right to everything, men want everything." He was correct, look at what we perpetrate as caring, everyone is a minority, worthy of special treatment based on little to nothing. Rather than taking a look at the country as a whole and what would benefit the future for all, we are left with a power struggle between races, political parties, religions, and individuals, not Americans. This is not liberty or selflessness, it is selfishness and greed.

Burke's original publication of "Reflections on the Revolution in France," was met with much opposition and treated quite negatively. But it was not until two years after his death was he proven correct. Burke saw reactionary change as a way for a despot or dictator to rise to power under the guise of liberty and freedom for the oppressed. Well, after the execution of King Louis the XVI, the Reign of Terror in which thousands of the French citizenry were murdered or arrested, and the murder of scientists and intellectuals there was the rise of Napoleon.

Can we expect this sort of thing in America? Probably not, but, what you can expect with the sort of radical change is a greatly weakened nation. Possibly a movement to a 2nd rate power in the world. This shift in America has taken place over the past 30-40 years and is speeding up. If you look at the change in the social climate from 1991-2007 it is a different America. No thought was put into this by our so called enlightened minds, they see their agenda as the only way possible and much like Voltaire and Rousseau did in the French Revolution. By Burke's philosophies, we would hold on to and protect traditional values, such as family, religion, free market, etc. and let the organism that is America change according to its needs. Not forcing some Maoist revolutionary theory down our throats. Hence, why people who truly follow Burke's philosophy are called Conservatives, they are trying to conserve what is right and time tested while looking for wise change.

The United States is at its best when we are allowed to operate with initiative, creativity, and liberty. There is no better environment that can foster this type of success we have known and Burke understood this. But he also understood that a society without laws or too much law is either chaotic or oppressive. Unfortunately, we could be moving towards a culture that is made up of big government and big regulation. A second look at Burke by the Republican leadership might help them remember why they were once Conservatives and what that meant. I think most Americans would love a return to some core Conservative values mixed with a little forward but wise thinking.

C.T.

P.S. I hope to be writing more about Burke in the future. I am no expert on the man and I do draw many conclusions about him on a personal level. But, I highly recommend absorbing anything you get your hands on about him. Understanding his philosophies about individual freedoms and responsibilities versus the needs of government and authority are key to this nation's success.

Continue reading ...

Media Hype

C.T.

Media hype, we hear about it all the time, but what is it? Well, by my own personal definition it is, " Sensationalism of mediocrity that sells and gets ratings and acquires viewers." Anyone with common sense or is somewhat well versed in politics and economics knows we are in rough times, or about to be. But when you turn on the tube, what is the "news" you see?


We are inundated about the Democratic mud slinging, Britney, Bush bashing, Obama bashing, Clinton bashing, useless sound bites, human interest stories, and opinion. None of this in my world qualifies as newsworthy. Where is the news? What are the things they should be reporting to the American public and where has it been written that we should take the MSM as gospel on situations?


The answer to these questions is simple; no one reports the news, the American public deserves the truth, not hype or op-eds, and the MSM is not the gospel on anything. Politics and reporting are more intertwined than ever before, I am sure to an extent it always has been. Why is the "news" reported based on the editor's and producer's political background? We do not deserve that, we deserve a report, not an analysis by the so-called experts. Take something simple as a police report, it is a gathering of the facts based on investigation into a particular situation. This sounds pretty simple and it is, this is way the news should be. Now, I do realize that there is always going to be an amount of personal judgement as to what transpired, but that is alright. What we are seeing on the idiot box these days is far passed that.


I would think the media went South after 1968-69 when Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam war was unwinnable, because of the Tet offensive. Ironic, thing was, that it was the hugest military blunder made by North Vietnam and American forces spanked them. But, the war was unwinnable? Could you imagine if the media had declared that in World War II with the German counter attack in France after D-Day? We might be living with an ever looming fascist threat.


President Lyndon Johnson is reported to have said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America." This remark, made back in the late 60's, shows the power the media wielded back then. To think that they have not perfected the art even further is foolish. With the advent of the Internet and the speed at which information can be disseminated nowadays the power of the media has been greatly expanded, but so has the power of the little guy to investigate it and find out the truth. No longer are we restricted to just being told what is happening, we can actually find out all the facts and make our own rational decisions.

C.T.

Continue reading ...

Racism, Reverends, and Golf

C.T.

With all the race baiting, bantering from Reverend Wright, and Barack Obama's statements about his white grandma, everyone seems to have forgotten the plight of Kelly Tilghman. If you don't remember her, she was the Golf Channel commentator who made an off hand remark about Tiger Wood's opponents wanting to lynch him because he is so good.

There was a literal maelstrom of controversy from none other than Rev. Al "Not So" Sharpton. It resulted in Tilghman's public scolding and a two week suspension from work. Tilghman was guilty of nothing more than being glib. There was no racism in her words or intent. Yet she was crucified in the court of public opinion and for what?

Wright and Obama are guilty of the very same thing that Tilghman was accused of. There is video and audio proof of their statements, contradictions, and lies. Tilghman made a simple remark about Tiger Woods and his abilities. Because of what some might call a poor choice of words she is damn near destroyed. But Obama is still vying for the Presidency and Wright's congregation will probably grow.

Another interesting fact is that Tiger Woods refers to himself as a Cablinasian. A word he invented to represent his racial background of Caucasian, Black and Asian. Better be careful not to make any jokes about chopsticks or people who use them. Tiger may just go upside your head with a 9 iron.

In all seriousness, this sham is just another example of the hypocrisy and free ride afforded to people like Obama and Wright. We have to walk on egg shells and get "lynched" for using verbiage that means nothing racially. They, on the other hand, can speak what they see as the truth and no discourse is even allowed. The shallowness of this situation is just another example of the problems that this country is experiencing. It will not be Iraq or the economy which will undo this country; it will be stupidity like this.

C.T.

Continue reading ...

Black Rage!! Black Rage!!

C.T.

If you have ever seen the movie "Chasing Amy," there is a scene in the movie that is my favorite an epitomizes the state of the black reverends, and even their community. The character,Hooper X, is giving his diatribe on how Star Wars was a racist movie. When he simply has had enough of the "white boys" stupid questions he unleashes his "black rage" by firing a .45 cal into the audience, appearing to kill a few of the onlookers. Now of course, the scene is set up by him and his two white friends. No one dies and it is simply a publicity stunt. But, best part is is that Hooper X is no more a militant than the average white tax payer in Wisconsin. In fact, he is a gay black man.

Now, how Hooper X applies. Hooper knows that no one will buy a comic book about a militant black super hero, who is fighting Whitey, from a gay black man. So, he adopts a persona that fits what he thinks the black community is hungry for. This is exactly what the Black preachers are doing.

I have lived, most of my adult life, in a city that is about 72% black and was underwater in Aug. 2005. Not a hard one to figure out. I have been to a few inner city black churches and enjoyed myself. I do not think that they stopped the hate whitey speech just because I was there as a guest. The message I heard was one of hope, responsibility, faith, and looking to the future. In my book, the men and women professing this message and the word of Jesus Christ are the one's who get the moniker, Reverend. Now, these churches are not the ones that gain notoriety. Unfortunately, it is the angry, hate-America, it's all Whitey's fault that do.

As a white man, I am told that I do not understand the plight of the American-African culture. It is one of frustration about slavery, prejudice, and discrimination. How could I know about that since I have been so privy to an illustrious upbringing? Well, the fact of the matter is I do. Just like most inner city whites who have lived and worked along side our black counterparts, I have seen their toils and crosses they bear. There is no difference between what the average black man faces than what I have faced. Bills, taxes, going to work, raising kids, maintaining a marriage, just trying to keep your head above water. I see blacks in jobs that as little as forty years ago none of them would have occupied, I have had black women as my boss. Could you imagine in 1968 a white man working for a black woman? As crazy as the thought was, here we are.

If this is the truth then why do so many inner city Blacks buy into these false Reverend's message of hate? Simple, it is easy. Why did so many whites buy into the KKK or the White Supremacist message.? We all do it, because it is easier to blame someone else for our misfortune than taking personal responsibility. When you look into the mirror do you like what you see?

As for the Reverends, these are people who are smart enough to know that if they inundate their community with hatred it will give them a position of power in that community. It is easy to elevate yourself around people who are tired and feel forgotten. You give them an enemy and let them feel like you know how to fight that enemy, you will be on top. It is a tactic that has been around for a very long time. Sadly, it has caused many cities to burn and many countries to fall.

Do we have far to go with race relations? Not really. The only problem we have is the people who profit from division. Get rid of them and the race problem is pretty much gone. Sounds easy doesn't it? Since that is not going to be the reality we should educate each other on the real problem and hope it takes. Then and only then can the "isms" stop.

C.T.

Continue reading ...